Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock's perfect logic,
Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day
Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
Good morning.
............ [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.
But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.
--
The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it's still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.
===
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.
The Economist debate , was a major source of my points. All with academic , integrity.
Honestly , Mike,,, SIMPLY dismissive sentences,, no fact ,, not solid statements of principle.
No Academic Worthiness.
The congress men you Mike says quoted you , when you read the full quotes,, they are for stronger copyright protection.
The Economist debate , was a major source of my points.
All with academic , integrity.
All you offer are "simple dismissive statements"
As I told , another poster,
Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock's perfect logic,
Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day
Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
Good morning.
............ [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.
But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.
--
The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it's still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.
===
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.
www.economist.com /// Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that ) Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will save you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
"Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law."
"Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET."
"Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society."
"We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries."
"The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect."
"Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention."
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a primer publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will say you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
Dear Sir,
Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.
Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.
Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society.
We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.
The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.
Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.
Re: Re: Re:No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property...while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits.
"No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property...while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits."
There's a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a "sovereign," which leads to tyranny
YOU :"There's a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a "sovereign," which leads to tyranny"
ANS::
True .
Except we live in the USA in a DEMOCRATIC Republic .
The PEOPLE elect Congress.
There are laws made by congress .
We Follow.
Or we get "prosecuted" .
-----------------------------
"IP is immoral and there is >>>nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy "
----------
MY ANS :
Idealistically ,, YES ! Of course.
BUT , as long as evil exists, ( i.e. -- lie, cheat, steal -- by force if necessary ) --- Ans : NO !!!!
Thaw is why we have law.
When we neither need law or money , history ends. Redemption begins.
Our human utopia is made.
-------------------------------------------
We got,,, as humans,, , well, we have a while to go before evil is gone,
Piracy is evil and moral by all definition of law and history.
That is why we still need , "gov't", "laws ", "money" , and "copyright".
Too many: "shoplifters", "spammers", "pirates at sea", "bank robbers", "crime gangs", "sex trade slavery", and "land Pirates in Somalia et al" ,, and "tax evaders" , and "Cyber-Pirates" --
- ALL being EVIL and w/o moral qualms .
------------------
Law.
and Gravity.
Gravity: It is not just the Law. It is a good Idea.
-----------------------------
BUT with that IDEA alone ,
no copyright yet for the "Holy Creator".
Now with "Quantum String theory/ LAWS "
AND
"all the WORKING Laws of NATURE" is Complete.
-------------
The "HOLY ONE's" patented and copyrighted system of Law & Nature
=================
I,, for one,, would not take any chances of "infringing" or "circumventing" or downloading ---
w/o the Holy Creators
WRITTEN permission*.
-------------------------
( * i.e. the "five Books of Moses" , outlines the written permission --LAW --, in mine and most all the world's good faiths. )
they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.
ME :
You raise good stuff,, that we may go back to,
But I want to deal with this point of "personal principle"
concerning morals in law and history:
Copyright is a law,
AND a moral and/or Natural right.
----------------------
This point is the gulf between us.
If you do not extent copyright
and patent as outlined in
the USA Constitution ,
to a moral at least and /or a
Natural Right at best --
We never really can agree on Copyright and/or Patent.
-------------------
To me that is the point of any debate --
To find that root issue,
That each side is coming from on.
-------------------
Pirates see no moral wrong in their actions.
(Correct?)
------------------------------
Mankind, Society , and Nations ,
are ( very nearly) unanimous in LAW ,
that Piracy should be AND IS illegal.
-------------------
There is deep philosophical debate between the views
of , John Locke, Jefferson & Madison Inc.
, Ayn Rand ,
Mike ,
and me ,
as to whether
"Copyright & Patent protections"
is an "extension
of Natural Law,"
or "Moral Law " ,
Or no Morals invoked or involved -- which is the definition "g-dless nihilism"
Throughout human history Pirates "on land and on sea" have been practicing a "g-dless nihilism" life philosophy ,
Based on the "physical laws of nature" and the "life principle" of "survival of the fittest" .
Cyber Pirates are the same ilk , form my "World View."
A "Wold view" , that has the force of Law & Government AND the majority of people on Earth behind it.
-----
Now if you do not even accept natural law, well fine.
But THEN WHY ,, oh why,,
is Piracy illegal all over the world?
My Ans : Because Piracy , of all forms , are considered
IMMORAL by the majority of Humanity.
So I ask you now Mike :
Why do you think "Cyber-Piracy" IS "basically illegal" and prosecuted by Governments all over the world?
What the root reasons of the LAWS --- their Purpose?
Do you really see it as oppression?
====================================
Re: Your Answer Mike.///By the very definition of "invention" means the first to come up with something.
ME: a small point of definition here.
"By the very definition of "invention" means the first to come up with something",,,,,, and it most almost always*, means building on inventions that came before you.
BY combining their ideas, concepts, and innovations into your new patent.
--------
almost always* : We learn from nature. Who invented the the "first. knife" or " the first spear" ?
No one.
Man Learned the principle and concepts from observing nature.
From some one whose posts asked , is "IP itself unethical",
seems to me , Mike you're the hypocrite here.
According your Dogma MIKE , ,, I have full right to post articles , within your VERY VERY broad definition of "Fair Use".
If you had guts,, you would challenge AP to sue you !!!
I will ,, AP please SUE ME !!!!!!!! ----------- For posting the" knuckle princess" article here. NY times can join too.
------------------------------------------
I'm saying you're a hypocrite -- MIKE !!!
Web site contents must comply with applicable copyright law. This means that:
1. The material (images, text, video etc.) used on the site must be original work, OR
2. You must have permission from the copyright holder to use the work on your site. OR
3. The work must be in the public domain. OR
4. The way you plan to use the work falls under fair use provisions of copyright law.
Copyright law, and particularly what counts as copyright infringement under “fair use” provisions for educators, can be confusing. >>>Nonetheless, educators have a legal and ethical obligation to make an informed judgment about fair use before posting copyrighted material.
I've followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again.
MIKE "I've followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again."
ME : just saying I am wrong ,, w/o citing academic sources, is the word of a fool ,who cannot accept I am right.
Sorry this is my discipline ,, and I think the post I put up for the ECONOMIST on copy right debate proofs my point.
I am qualified to teach these points at a college level.
As far as logic -- the Babylonian Talmud is nearly4000 pages of dense difficult logic , that Jew Laws is today based on,I do ok there too
I you really want to debate me in a academically moderated forum ,, on copy right, laws moral , and philosophy . as related too,, Set it Mike ,, and I will be there.
I challenge you MIKE , to an "academically moderated" copyright laws , moral, and philosophy DEBATE , anytime , any where ,, as long as we BOTH accept the qualification of the ACADEMIC MODERATOR .
Here for techdirt , MIKE I challenge you ,,to do an extensive sited & sourced post ,, with quotes for me , and shadow EXACTLY "when , where , and how" , I have been proven "wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy,"
Put your "research-keyboard" where you "cyber-mouth." (i.e. in a cyber -sense , put up your dukes""
Just saying by some idiot drugged out pirate geeks "prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy",, is a big piece of smelly "B>S>" with backing it up with specifics and within academic parameters.
You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law.
YOU :"You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the
full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law. "
ME: Clear Citation of law needed ,, as you are playing Cop .
Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, tells us: "Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary. It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
"Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet," Burton continues. "Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search mechanisms. The decision was appealed."
"On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant," he continues. "In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a 'full' replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals."
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Honestly , Mike,,, SIMPLY dismissive sentences,, no fact ,, not solid statements of principle.
No Academic Worthiness.
The congressmen you Mike says quoted you , when you read the full quotes,, they are for stronger copyright protection. ( see below)
The Economist debate , was a major source of my points.
All with academic , integrity.
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/312/CommentKey:289870
All you offer are "simple dismissive statements"
As I told , another poster,
Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock's perfect logic,
I got my own blog,
I an other will be watching .
History will be the judge.
Copyright Now,
Copyright Stronger.
Copyright Forever.
____-
How mike argues::::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Monty Python : the "Argument Clinic "
-----------------------------------
Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day
Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
Good morning.
............ [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.
But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.
--
The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it's still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.
===
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.
Gigi, thank you so much for inviting me here this morning. I hope you all enjoy celebrating World Fair Use Day.
===========================
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse .sht ml
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
The Economist debate , was a major source of my points. All with academic , integrity.
No Academic Worthiness.
The congress men you Mike says quoted you , when you read the full quotes,, they are for stronger copyright protection.
The Economist debate , was a major source of my points.
All with academic , integrity.
All you offer are "simple dismissive statements"
As I told , another poster,
Mr. Spock had the same problem with many space aliens , there where too simple minded and blinded by false dogmas , to ever understand Mr. Spock's perfect logic,
I got my own blog,
I an other will be watching .
History will be the judge.
Copyright Now,
Copyright Stronger.
Copyright Forever.
____-
How mike argues::::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Monty Python : the "Argument Clinic "
-----------------------------------
Congressman Doyle Gives Keynote Speech at First World’s Fair Use Day
Washington, DC – January 12, 2010 – U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) gave the following speech this morning as keynote speaker at the First Annual World’s Fair Use Day:
Good morning.
............ [I]ve been reading about this on TechDirt, so Mike Masnick, please forgive me if I use your example, but I’ve noticed that Rupert Murdoch is furious at Google for this kind of fair use. He not only wants to block Google’s web crawling of his content, which he could legally do today if he wanted – but he wants the entire legal theory underpinning this activity overturned.
But it wasn’t until I saw TechDirt’s feature on the dozens of examples of other NewsCorp websites that rely on scraping other people’s content that I realized that Murdoch’s argument was flawed. Why do his own sites do it? Because it’s useful to readers, and if it’s useful, then readers will come back to the site more often, generating ads, generating revenue and so on.
--
The US Trade Representative is engaging in negotiations over a trade agreement that might have significant, harmful effects on the Internet and fair use. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you what’s in it because it's still in negotiations and I haven’t signed a non-disclosure agreement.
===
And in their filing, the delegation made clear that “The United States is committed to***** both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law.” *****
That’s exactly my belief, and I’m glad that's the Obama Administration’s view. Copyright exceptions like fair use are important to our nation.
Gigi, thank you so much for inviting me here this morning. I hope you all enjoy celebrating World Fair Use Day.
===========================
http://doyle.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa14_doyle/20100112FairUse.sht ml
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
www.economist.com /// Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that ) Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a MAJOR ACADEMIC publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will save you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
"Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law."
"Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET."
"Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society."
"We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries."
"The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect."
"Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention."
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: I've followed a few of your discu
Two professors debate copyright laws and the future. However neither supports abolishing it. ( I guess they could not find a sane person in academics who believes that )
Great read here ,, at a primer publication.
Please, any and everyone , READ it , before commenting,
will say you time.
Core quote from the debate moderator:
"As our debaters quickly acknowledged, and many of the comments from the floor confirmed, the matter is not quite so stark in practice: one can admit that existing copyright laws are terribly flawed yet conclude they do not "do more harm than good," as the debate's motion demands. "
--------------------------
from the same page :
Featured User's Comment
Dear Sir,
Unfortunately 'hope for the future' and many other people confuse patent law with copyright law.
Also unfortunately, and ironically, both have failed to keep up with progress. Probably the single most important influence on copyright law, is the INTERNET.
Copyright law, and therefore copyright owners, MUST adapt to this fast changing 'world' society.
We are no longer restricted by geographical boundaries.
The only copyright laws that will work, are those that ALL jurisdictions are prepared to respect.
Remember, the moral reason for Copyright law is to provide some method of intellectual protection (and therefore opportunity for financial reward), to the creators of material, eg. novels, poems, music etc. but the implementation of the law has many other business implications which seem to have become more rewarding for groups other than the original creators and that is contrary to the original intention.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
My right to make copies is greater than your right to prevent me from making copies. Exhibit A: Reality.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
. It is not a "right" in any sense of the word, it is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities.
Ans : Do you have , a law , philosphy . or Poly-Sci degree?
What are your qualifications to say Copy right is a legal suspension of natural rights and activities?
Who agree with legal suspension of natural rights and activities? John Locke ? Ayn Rand ? Hobbs ? Calvin?
Who?
Site sources and quotes please.
start here :
http://www.answers.com/topic/inalienable-rights
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
But of course most moral rights aren't recognized in the U.S
ME: really !?!?
Please explain.
Murder , theft , crime , is immoral and wrong.
Yes on human rights issues,, we are far from perfect, but getting better.
Drug laws are liberalizing too.
Where is the "most moral rights aren't recognized in the U.S" ?
=====================================
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: um ... i think you've missed the point
here is mine :
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/
I is also "unhappy " with Mike's premise here.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Re: Re:No, you favor highly regulated, government granted, perpetual monopolies for physical property...while at the same time favoring a completely deregulated, anarchistic market for intellectual pursuits.
ME :well put .
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
There's a big difference between self-regulation, which is consistent with freedom, and regulations imposed from a "sovereign," which leads to tyranny
ANS::
True .
Except we live in the USA in a DEMOCRATIC Republic .
The PEOPLE elect Congress.
There are laws made by congress .
We Follow.
Or we get "prosecuted" .
-----------------------------
"PEACEFUL" , "Respect-FULL" , "Non- Violent",,
" Civil Disobedience" is Great.
Civil Rights .
Ant - War,
.B.P. ' s Headquarters.
But "shoplifting" is NOT PEACEFUL , RESPECTFUL , Non- Violent Civil disobedience .
"Cyber-Piracy -- infringement --circumvention -- downloading " ----
"illegally"
IS in violation of COPYRIGHT.
The Law . of a Democratic Republic.
In is Constitution.
Good Luck Changing the Law.
T'ain't gonna Happen.
Ever.
===================end
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: real innovative ppl aren't motivated by money
"IP is immoral and there is >>>nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy "
----------
MY ANS :
Idealistically ,, YES ! Of course.
BUT , as long as evil exists, ( i.e. -- lie, cheat, steal -- by force if necessary ) --- Ans : NO !!!!
Thaw is why we have law.
When we neither need law or money , history ends. Redemption begins.
Our human utopia is made.
-------------------------------------------
We got,,, as humans,, , well, we have a while to go before evil is gone,
Piracy is evil and moral by all definition of law and history.
That is why we still need , "gov't", "laws ", "money" , and "copyright".
Too many: "shoplifters", "spammers", "pirates at sea", "bank robbers", "crime gangs", "sex trade slavery", and "land Pirates in Somalia et al" ,, and "tax evaders" , and "Cyber-Pirates" --
- ALL being EVIL and w/o moral qualms .
------------------
Law.
and Gravity.
Gravity: It is not just the Law. It is a good Idea.
-----------------------------
BUT with that IDEA alone ,
no copyright yet for the "Holy Creator".
Now with "Quantum String theory/ LAWS "
AND
"all the WORKING Laws of NATURE" is Complete.
-------------
The "HOLY ONE's" patented and copyrighted system of Law & Nature
=================
I,, for one,, would not take any chances of "infringing" or "circumventing" or downloading ---
w/o the Holy Creators
WRITTEN permission*.
-------------------------
( * i.e. the "five Books of Moses" , outlines the written permission --LAW --, in mine and most all the world's good faiths. )
===== e ===== n ==== d ======
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: real innovative ppl aren't motivated by money /// IP is immoral and there is nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy
"IP is immoral and there is >>>nothing that can stop society from getting to a moneyless economy "
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
they spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop drugs, and only a few pass all the tests and make it to market. without a profit motivation, what would their desire be to toss that sort of money around? answer: none.
You raise good stuff,, that we may go back to,
But I want to deal with this point of "personal principle"
concerning morals in law and history:
Copyright is a law,
AND a moral and/or Natural right.
----------------------
This point is the gulf between us.
If you do not extent copyright
and patent as outlined in
the USA Constitution ,
to a moral at least and /or a
Natural Right at best --
We never really can agree on Copyright and/or Patent.
-------------------
To me that is the point of any debate --
To find that root issue,
That each side is coming from on.
-------------------
Pirates see no moral wrong in their actions.
(Correct?)
------------------------------
Mankind, Society , and Nations ,
are ( very nearly) unanimous in LAW ,
that Piracy should be AND IS illegal.
-------------------
There is deep philosophical debate between the views
of , John Locke, Jefferson & Madison Inc.
, Ayn Rand ,
Mike ,
and me ,
as to whether
"Copyright & Patent protections"
is an "extension
of Natural Law,"
or "Moral Law " ,
Or no Morals invoked or involved -- which is the definition "g-dless nihilism"
Throughout human history Pirates "on land and on sea" have been practicing a "g-dless nihilism" life philosophy ,
Based on the "physical laws of nature" and the "life principle" of "survival of the fittest" .
Cyber Pirates are the same ilk , form my "World View."
A "Wold view" , that has the force of Law & Government AND the majority of people on Earth behind it.
-----
Now if you do not even accept natural law, well fine.
But THEN WHY ,, oh why,,
is Piracy illegal all over the world?
My Ans : Because Piracy , of all forms , are considered
IMMORAL by the majority of Humanity.
So I ask you now Mike :
Why do you think "Cyber-Piracy" IS "basically illegal" and prosecuted by Governments all over the world?
What the root reasons of the LAWS --- their Purpose?
Do you really see it as oppression?
====================================
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: What the F*&^% ???
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Your Answer Mike.///By the very definition of "invention" means the first to come up with something.
"By the very definition of "invention" means the first to come up with something",,,,,, and it most almost always*, means building on inventions that came before you.
BY combining their ideas, concepts, and innovations into your new patent.
--------
almost always* : We learn from nature. Who invented the the "first. knife" or " the first spear" ?
No one.
Man Learned the principle and concepts from observing nature.
Any one here ever been bit by a bear?
Your neighbors dog ?
Your lover ?
Knifes and Spears.
======== e ==== n ==== d ==============
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
I'm saying you're a hypocrite.
seems to me , Mike you're the hypocrite here.
According your Dogma MIKE , ,, I have full right to post articles , within your VERY VERY broad definition of "Fair Use".
If you had guts,, you would challenge AP to sue you !!!
I will ,, AP please SUE ME !!!!!!!! ----------- For posting the" knuckle princess" article here. NY times can join too.
------------------------------------------
I'm saying you're a hypocrite -- MIKE !!!
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
"Posting policy" has nothing to do with anything
ME:
http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/labnet/tech-support-center/policies/web-posting-policy/index.aspx
Copyright Guidelines
Web site contents must comply with applicable copyright law. This means that:
1. The material (images, text, video etc.) used on the site must be original work, OR
2. You must have permission from the copyright holder to use the work on your site. OR
3. The work must be in the public domain. OR
4. The way you plan to use the work falls under fair use provisions of copyright law.
Copyright law, and particularly what counts as copyright infringement under “fair use” provisions for educators, can be confusing. >>>Nonetheless, educators have a legal and ethical obligation to make an informed judgment about fair use before posting copyrighted material.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Re: Bruce vs. McCain.
Proofs my point. I am right 100% here , on copyright laws and morals. AS you ,, MIKE cannot rebut "the Boss's point in law or morality" vs. McCain.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
I've followed a few of your discussions in the past few weeks, and all I can say is that others here have repeatedly taken the time to prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy, over and over and over and over and over again.
ME : just saying I am wrong ,, w/o citing academic sources, is the word of a fool ,who cannot accept I am right.
Sorry this is my discipline ,, and I think the post I put up for the ECONOMIST on copy right debate proofs my point.
I am qualified to teach these points at a college level.
As far as logic -- the Babylonian Talmud is nearly4000 pages of dense difficult logic , that Jew Laws is today based on,I do ok there too
I you really want to debate me in a academically moderated forum ,, on copy right, laws moral , and philosophy . as related too,, Set it Mike ,, and I will be there.
I challenge you MIKE , to an "academically moderated" copyright laws , moral, and philosophy DEBATE , anytime , any where ,, as long as we BOTH accept the qualification of the ACADEMIC MODERATOR .
Here for techdirt , MIKE I challenge you ,,to do an extensive sited & sourced post ,, with quotes for me , and shadow EXACTLY "when , where , and how" , I have been proven "wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy,"
Put your "research-keyboard" where you "cyber-mouth." (i.e. in a cyber -sense , put up your dukes""
Just saying by some idiot drugged out pirate geeks "prove you wrong, and ignorant of history, the law and basic philosophy",, is a big piece of smelly "B>S>" with backing it up with specifics and within academic parameters.
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
You claim fair use and yet you say you have posted the full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law.
full articles or extensive portions of them. simply reusing them in full is clearly not considered fair use under current law. "
ME: Clear Citation of law needed ,, as you are playing Cop .
start here :
What is Fair Use? You Tell Us.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/06/10/what-is-fair-use-you-tell-us
Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, tells us: "Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary. It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
"Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet," Burton continues. "Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba's image search mechanisms. The decision was appealed."
"On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant," he continues. "In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a 'full' replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals."
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2010/06/10/what-is-fair-use-you-tell-us
Next >>